If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Supreme Court says, yes, child pornographers should pay victims, but let's not get crazy about it   (cnn.com) divider line 83
    More: Followup, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

1651 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2014 at 3:06 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-23 02:21:58 PM  
Are all convicted criminals required to pay victims?
 
2014-04-23 02:54:05 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Are all convicted criminals required to pay victims?


If they caused financial harm, restitution is a common part of sentencing. So if you break into a car to steal an iPod and get caught, you are probably going to have to pay for that window.

This was a slightly more tricky case. The victim here was a girl named "Amy" who was horrifyingly raped by a relative when she was a child, and whose pictures are (supposedly) the most commonly-traded images of child pornography in the world. Congress passed a law saying that victims of child pornography can intervene in a criminal case and ask that they be paid restitution as a result of the harm of having their images traded around the world (therapy, emotional damages, etc...). Mr. Paroline, the criminal, was caught with  two images of "Amy." At sentencing, the Court sentenced him to jail, as well as $3.4 million for damages to be paid to "Amy," on the theory that Congress's law allowed for what's know as "joint and several liability"; that is, every person who traded the pictures is  equally liable to everyone else, and therefore each person caught must pay the full amount of damages owed to "Amy."

Kennedy, for the majority (along with Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan), said that Paroline will still have to pay restitution to "Amy," but that the $3.4 million was clearly way over the line, and laid out a number of factors for a lower court to look at to determine how much he owes, including how many pictures he had, whether or not he had any role in producing the images, whether he shared them, and so on. This is something of a middle ground between the two dissents; yes, you have to pay the victim just for the act of possessing a picture of her being raped, but no, you don't have to pay her full costs.
Roberts, in dissent (with Scalia and Thomas), said that he didn't think people who just possessed the pictures, without having had any role in producing the originals or distributing them, shouldn't have to pay restitution at all.
Sotomayor, in dissent all on her own, thinks that Paroline should have had to pay the full amount to Amy.
 
2014-04-23 02:59:01 PM  

Rincewind53: sentencing, the Court sentenced him to jail, as well as $3.4 million for damages


Err, looks like I got the procedural history wrong. The District Court denied the request for restitution, reasoning that there had to be some connection between Paroline's possession and harm to "Amy," but that was reversed on appeal by the Fifth Circuit, who ordered the full amount of restitution.
 
2014-04-23 03:08:00 PM  
CNN covered something else besides MH370?
 
2014-04-23 03:11:22 PM  
This is like the worst supreme court ever.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:46 PM  

Biff_Steel: This is like the worst supreme court ever.


Why do you say that?
 
2014-04-23 03:15:28 PM  

LessO2: CNN covered something else besides MH370?


They found clues in bikini pictures of Ariel Winter.
 
2014-04-23 03:15:49 PM  

Biff_Steel: This is like the worst supreme court ever.


Dredd Scott concurs.
 
2014-04-23 03:15:53 PM  
They're creating so many jobs! Let's not hamper them with harmful government regulation.
 
2014-04-23 03:21:01 PM  

Biff_Steel: This is like the worst supreme court ever.


We have another Supreme Court?
 
2014-04-23 03:22:23 PM  

Biff_Steel: This is like the worst supreme court ever.


It's certainly up there, but the decision in this particular case was pretty reasonable.
 
2014-04-23 03:23:24 PM  

gingerjet: Biff_Steel: This is like the worst supreme court ever.

We have another Supreme Court?


We have around 50 or so others, as a matter of fact.
 
2014-04-23 03:25:50 PM  
Could there possibly be a less sympathetic defendent
 
2014-04-23 03:26:23 PM  

Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: Are all convicted criminals required to pay victims?

 At sentencing, the Court sentenced him to jail, as well as $3.4 million for damages to be paid to "Amy," on the theory that Congress's law allowed for what's know as "joint and several liability"; that is, every person who traded the pictures is  equally liable to everyone else, and therefore each person caught must pay the full amount of damages owed to "Amy."


That wasn't exactly how I understood it. I understood that joint and several liability meant that each and every person that is guilty of having her photo owes her their proportional amount of the total of her damages.  Since there are many many people jointly guilty of this particular crime against her, they argued that she should not be required to sue each violator individually for the few dollars or hundreds they owe her of the $3.4 million.  They argued that it is incumbent upon any convicted violator to seek the money from his fellows.

She is still only entitled to the $3.4 mil. But now she has to sue each jerk individually.

I am almost certainly incorrect though.
 
2014-04-23 03:37:40 PM  

cptjeff: Biff_Steel: This is like the worst supreme court ever.

It's certainly up there, but the decision in this particular case was pretty reasonable.


Yeah I agree.  The guy who made and distributed the child porn should be on the hook for an unlimited amount because he's the one who directly caused the trauma.  But there should be discretion and limits to the amount of restitution owed by people just watching it because their contribution to the trauma is less significant.
 
2014-04-23 03:39:45 PM  

Tricky Chicken: That wasn't exactly how I understood it. I understood that joint and several liability meant that each and every person that is guilty of having her photo owes her their proportional amount of the total of her damages. Since there are many many people jointly guilty of this particular crime against her, they argued that she should not be required to sue each violator individually for the few dollars or hundreds they owe her of the $3.4 million. They argued that it is incumbent upon any convicted violator to seek the money from his fellows.

She is still only entitled to the $3.4 mil. But now she has to sue each jerk individually.

I am almost certainly incorrect though.


Joint and several is based on the principle that in many torts we dont want the plaintiff to have to chase down every party who might be liable for a particular malfeasance, so we saddle one of them with the damages and let them sort it out later.

Imagine Alice is in an accident.  She did no wrong but her car was hit from behind by Bob.  Bob hit Alice because he was following too closely and his car was hit by Carol.  Carol hit bob because she was driving too fast and because her car had a defective brake system that made it harder for her to stop.  carol's car is made by D-Motors.

Let us also assume that (if brought to a verdict) Bob is 20% responsible for the crash, Alice is 50% responsible and D-Motors is 30% responsible.

Here Alice could theoretically sue all three - Bob, Carol and D-motors - individually for their respective share in the damages, alleging that each had a share in the liability for her accident.  But if the tort was joint and several, Alice could just sue D-Motors for the full amount.  D-Motors would then have to scramble and find Bob and Alice and join them to the suit, or sue them in what is called a contribution action down the road, basically requiring them to cough up their share of the damages.

Therefore, in the end, each party is supposed to be on the hook only for their own damages.  However, in the real world, Bob is broke (i.e. "judgement proof") and Alice skipped town and cannot be found, so D-Motors pays their share.  While this may sound unfair, the argument for it is that either Alice or D-Motors is gonna get shafted with some costs, but in this scenario Alice did nothing wrong and D-Motors did - so if we have to choose who gets farked, make it the wrongdoer. 

If you look closely at the scenario above, you can see why this ruling basically came out the way it did.  Here there is no central contributory transaction, its a series of separate transactions that individually cause harm but are tenuously related.
 
2014-04-23 03:41:37 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: Are all convicted criminals required to pay victims?

 At sentencing, the Court sentenced him to jail, as well as $3.4 million for damages to be paid to "Amy," on the theory that Congress's law allowed for what's know as "joint and several liability"; that is, every person who traded the pictures is  equally liable to everyone else, and therefore each person caught must pay the full amount of damages owed to "Amy."

That wasn't exactly how I understood it. I understood that joint and several liability meant that each and every person that is guilty of having her photo owes her their proportional amount of the total of her damages.  Since there are many many people jointly guilty of this particular crime against her, they argued that she should not be required to sue each violator individually for the few dollars or hundreds they owe her of the $3.4 million.  They argued that it is incumbent upon any convicted violator to seek the money from his fellows.

She is still only entitled to the $3.4 mil. But now she has to sue each jerk individually.

I am almost certainly incorrect though.


I got my wording on that wrong.  Basically, the statute said that any person was liable for "the full amount of damages," a conceptsimilar to joint liability (not joint and several liability). Joint liability means each person is liable for the entirety of a debt. Several liability means each person is only responsible for their own share. Joint and several liability means that any one person is liable for the full amount of a debt, but then has the ability to go after the other parties who hold the debt to recover their portion. So what you described is just several liability, not joint and several liability.

Sotomayor's theory in dissent would bring it closer to true joint liability, Kennedy's majority opinion is more like several liability, and Roberts argued out that the entire statute was unconstitutionally arbitrary because it's totally impossible to calculate the actual amount of harm a single individual did as a result of possessing the images.

The use of joint and several liability is somewhat of a crutch though, because civil liability and restitution are different enough that I'm probably screwing things up just by using the terms in analogy.
 
2014-04-23 03:44:55 PM  

Teiritzamna: Imagine Alice is in an accident. She did no wrong but her car was hit from behind by Bob. Bob hit Alice because he was following too closely and his car was hit by Carol. Carol hit bob because she was driving too fast and because her car had a defective brake system that made it harder for her to stop. carol's car is made by D-Motors.

Let us also assume that (if brought to a verdict) Bob is 20% responsible for the crash, Alice Carol is 50% responsible and D-Motors is 30% responsible.

Here Alice could theoretically sue all three - Bob, Carol and D-motors - individually for their respective share in the damages, alleging that each had a share in the liability for her accident. But if the tort was joint and several, Alice could just sue D-Motors for the full amount. D-Motors would then have to scramble and find Bob and Alice and join them to the suit, or sue them in what is called a contribution action down the road, basically requiring them to cough up their share of the damages.

Therefore, in the end, each party is supposed to be on the hook only for their own damages. However, in the real world, Bob is broke (i.e. "judgement proof") and Alice skipped town and cannot be found, so D-Motors pays their share. While this may sound unfair, the argument for it is that either Alice or D-Motors is gonna get shafted with some costs, but in this scenario Alice did nothing wrong and D-Motors did - so if we have to choose who gets farked, make it the wrongdoer.



This is a good analogy but I think you made a mistake (bolded).
 
2014-04-23 03:47:48 PM  

Teiritzamna: Tricky Chicken: That wasn't exactly how I understood it. I understood that joint and several liability meant that each and every person that is guilty of having her photo owes her their proportional amount of the total of her damages. Since there are many many people jointly guilty of this particular crime against her, they argued that she should not be required to sue each violator individually for the few dollars or hundreds they owe her of the $3.4 million. They argued that it is incumbent upon any convicted violator to seek the money from his fellows.

She is still only entitled to the $3.4 mil. But now she has to sue each jerk individually.

I am almost certainly incorrect though.

Joint and several is based on the principle that in many torts we dont want the plaintiff to have to chase down every party who might be liable for a particular malfeasance, so we saddle one of them with the damages and let them sort it out later.

Imagine Alice is in an accident.  She did no wrong but her car was hit from behind by Bob.  Bob hit Alice because he was following too closely and his car was hit by Carol.  Carol hit bob because she was driving too fast and because her car had a defective brake system that made it harder for her to stop.  carol's car is made by D-Motors.

Let us also assume that (if brought to a verdict) Bob is 20% responsible for the crash, Alice is 50% responsible and D-Motors is 30% responsible.

Here Alice could theoretically sue all three - Bob, Carol and D-motors - individually for their respective share in the damages, alleging that each had a share in the liability for her accident.  But if the tort was joint and several, Alice could just sue D-Motors for the full amount.  D-Motors would then have to scramble and find Bob and Alice and join them to the suit, or sue them in what is called a contribution action down the road, basically requiring them to cough up their share of the damages.

Therefore, in the end, each party is supposed to be on the ...


Thank you.  that is a much better written explanation of what I thought I slightly understood.
 
2014-04-23 03:52:26 PM  
Amy was 8 when the violent abuse was committed by her uncle, Eugene Zebroski.
Zebroski was prosecuted a year later and sent to prison for 10 years. He was ordered to pay $6,300 in mandatory restitution to his niece, the amount of counseling she required up to that time.


Ten years and a few thousand dollars?!? That woman is permanently f*cked up, and is going to spend the rest of her life trying to deal with it.
 
2014-04-23 03:53:40 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Could there possibly be a less sympathetic defendent


It's almost like there's a reason judges are independent and not subject to political pressures!
 
hej
2014-04-23 03:53:49 PM  
So in this case, are the kids considered W2 employees?  Or are they more considered contract "models for hire"?
 
2014-04-23 03:54:33 PM  

lennavan: This is a good analogy but I think you made a mistake (bolded).


Damn it - good catch - thanks!
 
2014-04-23 03:55:49 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Could there possibly be a less sympathetic defendent


The guy making the pictures comes to mind.
 
2014-04-23 03:56:12 PM  
Zebroski was prosecuted a year later and sent to prison for 10 years

So he spent fifteen years raping a child, inflicting what is likely a lifetime emotional burden and a record of her abuse that cannot be erased... and then only ten years being punished for it.

Remind me again who comes up with these wildly inappropriate sentences for various criminal acts and what they're smoking when they do?
 
2014-04-23 03:57:10 PM  
So Mr Palomine didn't rape her or take photos of her or share them to the net from the originals?

This is the most widely circulated child porn imagery on the net?

So if I look at photos of somebody getting murdered, I should be on the hook for restitution to the victim's families for contributing to the harm of said murder victim?(replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)
 
2014-04-23 03:57:29 PM  

Rincewind53: The use of joint and several liability is somewhat of a crutch though, because civil liability and restitution are different enough that I'm probably screwing things up just by using the terms in analogy.


Yeah, my Damages professor is the reporter of the Restatement of Restitution.  If he heard me discussing legal damages in the same context as restitution he would shiat a brick.

Then again criminal statutory restitution is also so far from equitable civil restitution that comparing them is bad too.

/now i miss damages class . . .
 
2014-04-23 04:00:08 PM  
Lorelle: That woman is permanently f*cked up, and is going to spend the rest of her life trying to deal with it.

Did people lose the ability to heal?
 
2014-04-23 04:01:23 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Lorelle: That woman is permanently f*cked up, and is going to spend the rest of her life trying to deal with it.

Did people lose the ability to heal?


wat
 
2014-04-23 04:03:42 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: So if I look at photos of somebody getting murdered, I should be on the hook for restitution to the victim's families for contributing to the harm of said murder victim?(replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)


Actually, this very argument has been raised about similar issues. The most recent I can recall involved images and videos depicting animal cruelty, specifically so-called "crush" videos. Why is it a crime to own images of child pornography but not animal cruelty videos? Or videos of a bank robbery. Or a murder. Even just simply beating a child.

Barring other factors (such as the media being stolen, for example) images and videos of child sexual abuse are the only media depicting a criminal act which we treat ownership of as a crime.

Seems like, excepting for certain purposes like law enforcement or education, it should either be illegal to own all images depicting criminal acts or not. Not picky choosy based on personal "ick factor".
 
2014-04-23 04:04:03 PM  

skozlaw: Zebroski was prosecuted a year later and sent to prison for 10 years

So he spent fifteen years raping a child, inflicting what is likely a lifetime emotional burden and a record of her abuse that cannot be erased... and then only ten years being punished for it.

Remind me again who comes up with these wildly inappropriate sentences for various criminal acts and what they're smoking when they do?


Strange as it may seem, taking or possessing the photos is considered by society as a much worse crime than the actual rape.
 
2014-04-23 04:04:35 PM  

cptjeff: Lost Thought 00: Could there possibly be a less sympathetic defendent

It's almost like there's a reason judges are independent and not subject to political pressures!


Except for the judges which are directly elected
 
2014-04-23 04:07:32 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: So Mr Palomine didn't rape her or take photos of her or share them to the net from the originals?

This is the most widely circulated child porn imagery on the net?

So if I look at photos of somebody getting murdered, I should be on the hook for restitution to the victim's families for contributing to the harm of said murder victim?(replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)


Unlike a murder victim, "Amy" is very much still alive and kicking, and there is emotional harm to her knowing that every moment, there are men out there jerking off to pictures of her being violently raped as a child. This harm is ongoing as a result.

Your analogy doesn't stand.
 
2014-04-23 04:08:41 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Lorelle: That woman is permanently f*cked up, and is going to spend the rest of her life trying to deal with it.

Did people lose the ability to heal?


When one is sexually abused as a child, one never heals from it, one just learns to live with it.
 
2014-04-23 04:10:30 PM  
Well it's not like they were caught illegally downloading mp3's
 
2014-04-23 04:30:03 PM  
skozlaw

Barring other factors (such as the media being stolen, for example) images and videos of child sexual abuse are the only media depicting a criminal act which we treat ownership of as a crime.


That's because child abuse is such a trigger for everyone, and such a devastating thing to happen to someone, that virtually no one is even the slightest bit concerned with pedophilia being a thought crime, which is what those laws are tantamount too.
 
2014-04-23 04:30:57 PM  
From the article: "Amy was 8 when the violent abuse was committed by her uncle, Eugene Zebroski."
CNN, I think you just missed the purpose in her being called Amy Unknown!
 
2014-04-23 04:32:34 PM  

Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: So Mr Palomine didn't rape her or take photos of her or share them to the net from the originals?

This is the most widely circulated child porn imagery on the net?

So if I look at photos of somebody getting murdered, I should be on the hook for restitution to the victim's families for contributing to the harm of said murder victim?(replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)

Unlike a murder victim, "Amy" is very much still alive and kicking, and there is emotional harm to her knowing that every moment, there are men out there jerking off to pictures of her being violently raped as a child. This harm is ongoing as a result.

Your analogy doesn't stand.

 
2014-04-23 04:33:16 PM  

Lorelle: InterruptingQuirk: Lorelle: That woman is permanently f*cked up, and is going to spend the rest of her life trying to deal with it.

Did people lose the ability to heal?

When one is sexually abused as a child, one never heals from it, one just learns to live with it.


I pity you.
 
2014-04-23 04:38:57 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: (replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)


Congress has decided that child pornography, being  particularly heinous, does more emotional damage to people after-the-fact than, say, a video of someone getting robbed.

Not all violent crimes are the same.
 
2014-04-23 04:46:24 PM  

skozlaw: Actually, this very argument has been raised about similar issues. The most recent I can recall involved images and videos depicting animal cruelty, specifically so-called "crush" videos. Why is it a crime to own images of child pornography but not animal cruelty videos? Or videos of a bank robbery. Or a murder. Even just simply beating a child.


Basically, child porn occupies a special corner of Obscenity (basically it gets to be considered ultra obscenity, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)), meaning that it is not protected as part of "the freedom of speech" described in the first amendment.  As such, it can be prohibited even what is being prohibited is merely a recording of the act. 

The other subjects, such as crush porn, do not fit under the Obscenity exception to "the freedom of speech."  They may be heinous, and some examples may indeed meet the Miller standard for being obscene, but as a general category video of most other crimes is still protected first amendment goodness (hence a video of a shooting, even if it is of a murder, may have merit as news, and thus survives Miller - a video of a child being sexually abused, as far as i know, would not need to pass such a bar - it would be per se obscene and prohibitable).
 
2014-04-23 04:47:03 PM  

Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: Are all convicted criminals required to pay victims?

If they caused financial harm, restitution is a common part of sentencing. So if you break into a car to steal an iPod and get caught, you are probably going to have to pay for that window.

This was a slightly more tricky case. The victim here was a girl named "Amy" who was horrifyingly raped by a relative when she was a child, and whose pictures are (supposedly) the most commonly-traded images of child pornography in the world. Congress passed a law saying that victims of child pornography can intervene in a criminal case and ask that they be paid restitution as a result of the harm of having their images traded around the world (therapy, emotional damages, etc...). Mr. Paroline, the criminal, was caught with  two images of "Amy." At sentencing, the Court sentenced him to jail, as well as $3.4 million for damages to be paid to "Amy," on the theory that Congress's law allowed for what's know as "joint and several liability"; that is, every person who traded the pictures is  equally liable to everyone else, and therefore each person caught must pay the full amount of damages owed to "Amy."

Kennedy, for the majority (along with Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan), said that Paroline will still have to pay restitution to "Amy," but that the $3.4 million was clearly way over the line, and laid out a number of factors for a lower court to look at to determine how much he owes, including how many pictures he had, whether or not he had any role in producing the images, whether he shared them, and so on. This is something of a middle ground between the two dissents; yes, you have to pay the victim just for the act of possessing a picture of her being raped, but no, you don't have to pay her full costs.
Roberts, in dissent (with Scalia and Thomas), said that he didn't think people who just possessed the pictures, without having had any role in producing the originals or distributing them, shouldn't ha ...


OH so THIS is where they draw the line in excessive judgement?  The courts had no problem forcing grandmothers and lower class housewives to pay absurd amounts of money for downloading 2 songs but they limit the amount someone has to pay for damages when they download child porn.  The most absurd Supreme court in history has just said that downloading a song is worse then child porn.  ( I agree with the logical reasoning that a judgement should be based on damages that the person was proportionally involved in and not the whole crime if they are not the only ones responsible for the damages but come on.  Make this standard throughout all types of cases.)
 
2014-04-23 04:47:18 PM  
Hey Tommy, where'd you get the money for that sweet Corvette?

I get royalties.

Oh yeah, from what?

I need to go take a shower now.
 
2014-04-23 04:48:35 PM  

mcreadyblue: skozlaw: Zebroski was prosecuted a year later and sent to prison for 10 years

So he spent fifteen years raping a child, inflicting what is likely a lifetime emotional burden and a record of her abuse that cannot be erased... and then only ten years being punished for it.

Remind me again who comes up with these wildly inappropriate sentences for various criminal acts and what they're smoking when they do?

Strange as it may seem, taking or possessing the photos is considered by society as a much worse crime than the actual rape.


I think saying society thinks that way is a bit of a stretch.  Grandstanding politicians going for votes is usually the reason sentencing laws are out of whack.  I'm looking at you crack sentencing.

And i speak as someone who had to go to court because a sex offender had moved in to my daughter's house after doing 90 days for molesting a 12 year old.  I did get him re-arrested for not reporting to the registry and he got 2 years for the probation violation.

Seriously out of whack.
 
2014-04-23 04:49:07 PM  

Teiritzamna: skozlaw: Actually, this very argument has been raised about similar issues. The most recent I can recall involved images and videos depicting animal cruelty, specifically so-called "crush" videos. Why is it a crime to own images of child pornography but not animal cruelty videos? Or videos of a bank robbery. Or a murder. Even just simply beating a child.

Basically, child porn occupies a special corner of Obscenity (basically it gets to be considered ultra obscenity, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)), meaning that it is not protected as part of "the freedom of speech" described in the first amendment.  As such, it can be prohibited even what is being prohibited is merely a recording of the act. 

The other subjects, such as crush porn, do not fit under the Obscenity exception to "the freedom of speech."  They may be heinous, and some examples may indeed meet the Miller standard for being obscene, but as a general category video of most other crimes is still protected first amendment goodness (hence a video of a shooting, even if it is of a murder, may have merit as news, and thus survives Miller - a video of a child being sexually abused, as far as i know, would not need to pass such a bar - it would be per se obscene and prohibitable).


The question I always had is why is Obscenity considered an exception to the freedom of speech but hate speech isn't?  Shouldn't normal obsceneity (not child porn) be protected under the same logic that hate speech is, or the otherway around, shouldn't hate speech be not protected for the same reason obscenity isn't.
 
2014-04-23 04:52:17 PM  

Clever Neologism: That's because child abuse is such a trigger for everyone, and such a devastating thing to happen to someone, that virtually no one is even the slightest bit concerned with pedophilia being a thought crime, which is what those laws are tantamount too.


It isn't.
 
2014-04-23 04:52:28 PM  
www.thatruled.com
 
2014-04-23 04:56:18 PM  

Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: (replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)

Congress has decided that child pornography, being  particularly heinous, does more emotional damage to people after-the-fact than, say, a video of someone getting robbed.

Not all violent crimes are the same.


So if I torture a child, pulling out all their fingernails, and plucking every hair from their head one by one, flay the skin from their cheeks and remove their eyelids, remove their kneecaps with a spoon, clip off each of their toes with a cable cutter, but I leave their clothes on and never engage in any sexual or obscene activities with them, tape it and release it to the the net where people who like to watch torture films propagate it to millions of other people through the intertubes, I won't have to pay financial restitution to the victim because no sex was involved?
 
2014-04-23 04:57:39 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: (replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)

Congress has decided that child pornography, being  particularly heinous, does more emotional damage to people after-the-fact than, say, a video of someone getting robbed.

Not all violent crimes are the same.

So if I torture a child, pulling out all their fingernails, and plucking every hair from their head one by one, flay the skin from their cheeks and remove their eyelids, remove their kneecaps with a spoon, clip off each of their toes with a cable cutter, but I leave their clothes on and never engage in any sexual or obscene activities with them, tape it and release it to the the net where people who like to watch torture films propagate it to millions of other people through the intertubes, I won't have to pay financial restitution to the victim because no sex was involved?


You would, the people who downloaded the video wouldn't.
 
2014-04-23 04:57:48 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Rincewind53: InterruptingQuirk: (replace murder with whatever multimedia recorded violent offense you like)

Congress has decided that child pornography, being  particularly heinous, does more emotional damage to people after-the-fact than, say, a video of someone getting robbed.

Not all violent crimes are the same.

So if I torture a child, pulling out all their fingernails, and plucking every hair from their head one by one, flay the skin from their cheeks and remove their eyelids, remove their kneecaps with a spoon, clip off each of their toes with a cable cutter, but I leave their clothes on and never engage in any sexual or obscene activities with them, tape it and release it to the the net where people who like to watch torture films propagate it to millions of other people through the intertubes, I won't have to pay financial restitution to the victim because no sex was involved?


Why are you assuming you won't be found liable for psychological damages by the victim or the victim's family?
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report